G1s Vs New Macbook Pro

hi; for new macbook pro got 8600GT 256gt GDDR3;7700cpu 2.4MHZ

which one is better in comparing with G1S when playing games

 

Here's a big thread you should look at, it compares the MBP and its performance to the G1S as well.

Overall I would think the G1S would be better because it can run games in Vista natively. On the other hand, the MBP needs to use bootcamp and then install XP or Vista, and then play your games.

If you have no need for the Mac OS, then there's almost no point going for the MBP, since the G1S offers more overall, ports, features and looks.

 

You cannot install Vista or XP natively on a MacBook??

 

No, you need to use Bootcamp.

However, I personally think the G1s is ugly compared to the MBP.

Neon green LEDs? No thanks.

 

Bootcamp is just a utility that allows you to install Vista/XP natively.

If all you want is a gaming machine the macbook is going to cost you more. If you want a mac with the ability to play games then go with the MBP. The MBP is going to cost you much more if you intend to use Windows since you will have to purchase a copy of windows separately.

 

So basically what you guys are saying is that the MBP would have the same game performance on Vista as a PC?

I mean, hasn't anyone bought the new MPB yet and tested it out with some games, I've searched, but I haven't found any actual live performance.

Because if the MBP is equal to G1s - say in Games and Vista - than you also have the mac OS which is "virus free" for browsing the internet, nicer LED screen, better battery life, etc etc etc..

 

Another thing to consider is the heat. You'll likely be running a hotter machine on the MBP than you would on a G1S. Also while the computer is nice, you'll likely be paying much more, especially if you choose to extend the warranty with Apple (which is at least $300, I believe). The only way I'd get a MBP is if I wanted to learn more about the OS X operating system (I may one day, but not now).

 

Differences between G1S and MBP

G1S MBP
2.2Ghz 2.4Ghz
WSXGA+ WXGA+ & LED backlight
eSATA & HDMI Firewire 800
54 exp & 4USB 34 Exp & 2USB
Cool chassis with Cool chassis with no ugly lights.
ugly green lights
1+ inch height 1 inch height

On performance if the game is CPU depends the MBP will gain 3.6% advantage due to processor.
On Heat the MBP losses by a little.

The end result. If you willing to part with some additional money you get a cool looking notebook that can run MacOS and Vista natively. (No emulation as emulation is done using Parallel where is Bootcamp is just a boot loader designed to help you install second OS natively and help you create a Driver CD for the new OS)

 

How do those even compare?

 

Well, in theory (and this is a very big if), Vista will be updated to utilize EFI instead of BIOS....eventually.

If that's the case, you wouldn't even need to dual boot - you could just simply boot Windows natively without OS X or Boot Camp at all right?

Of course, no clue what decade that will be

 

I am not comparing... they are difference... read and understand. G1S has esata, HDMI, firewire 400 vs MBP firewire 400 and 800. Difference...

 

Don't forget the 54 vs 34mm expresscard

...and that the MBP only has 2 USB ports.

 

Added.. thank you.

 

So you guys are saying that Windows (vista) on the MPB is just as okay in terms of performance as any other PC?

 

I guess it time to clarify the bootcamp vs parallel. Emulation, EFI, native to make sure people get the idea of what will or will not give performance.

MBP uses a EFI instead of normal bios you find on most PC. EFI does provide a CSM (Compatibility Support Module) module which allows EFI to make hardware calls similar to how most bios do now. In reality this is what confuses most people as some consider the CSM to be emulation which it is not. If you read the Intel spec on EFI
http://www.intel.com/technology/framework
You will understand it isn't really emulation but more allowing legacy compatibility.
BootCamp is nothing more than easy way to partition, load boot loader, provide driver disk to install driver of other OS such as XP or Vista.
As far as performance hits, there isn't any as the OS will run natively. Think of someone doing a dual boot of XP and Vista. Do you think there will be performance hit other than having good drivers being issue to performance.

Parallels is VM software. VMware is another software similar to Parallel and they are also releasing software to allow windows run on MacOS. Parallel provides 3D support. However Parallel uses VT technology by Intel and thus the performance is good however it will considerably less when running a OS natively since you are just running a emulation within MacOS on which you run Windows XP or Vista. It does now allow natively 3D calls to passed directly to hardware but still not upto par with natively running OS.

If you can use bootcamp, you are basically running Vista or XP natively on MBP and you will get just as much performance you would if you are running vista on laptop designed for Vista. The only thing holding back is peformance would be ACPI hardware calls in CSM and Drivers.

 

You are forgettin that MacBook Pro has only a 1440x900 resolution while the Asus G1S has a 1680x1050, wich is way higher and provides better quality IF you are going to watch movies or videos or even do some graphics work. Games also works awesomely fine at 1680x1050 considering it's a laptop!.

On the other hand, it has a 2.2ghz CPU, but.. that won't make much of a difference because you can overclock so easily one of these, while a MBP is HOT and I won't dare touching it.. and c'mon, 9% at most won't make much of a difference *really*, while the price.. *cough*

Also.. and take this seriously if you're a gamer.. 8600GT on Asus G1S has default clock settings (wich can of course, again, be overclocked), while MBP has UNDERCLOCKED settings, so the 8600GT present on Asus G1 is a full powered one while MBP has a slower card.

Again, Asus G1 has 256MB VRAM buuut.. 512 with turbo caché, twice the memory for high resolutions, AA and sort of. MBP has 128 if you take the one with almost same price, or, 256 if you pay 500 bucks more...

MBP has 2 USB, Asus G1 has more aaand a multi card reader, wich is really helpfull today if you transfer things to your cellphone or camera.

So, a 1.999 MBP is really well underpowered when compared to an Asus G1S wich costs the same. A 2.499 MBP has at most a 9% CPU improvement, but also a low resolution (compared to G1), and 256 VRAM at most...

It all depends now on if you need OSX wich is a beautifull OS, and *maybe* if you really really like feautres like magsafe, backlit keyboard..., does it make up those 500 bucks considering lack of USB, multi card reader, lower resolution, lower VRAM??? it's up to you. But I stick with Asus G1 if game is the thing to do.

 

Why wouldn't you just put the MBP's DVI-out port next to the G1S' HDMI?? That would probably be the most logical thing to do concerning how you laid out the rest of the specs

Where to begin here... Just ignore this guy. Quickly:
1) Higher resolution vs LED display.... for gaming/watching movies personal preference but equal trade-off for the price.
2) I'm sure the G1S runs about as hot as the MBP. You might see a 5-10 degrees C difference.
3) On the 256MB version of the MBP, there is minimal underclocking done which won't even take a single frame away from your FPS meter in DX10 heavy games.
4) Turbocaching is a Vista software feature, fool.

If you're trying to point somebody in a particularly biased direction, at least provide some decent Pro's. You've got plenty of pages of threads already in this forum to work.

 

A few more things here to consider (I am trying to make similar decision, with IFL90 thrown in):

1. MBP has better battery life, 3.5-4 hours on Windows and more then that on the OS X.
2. MBP is 1.5 lbs or so lighter
3. MBP LED screen is probably going to be better.
4. For gaming, 1440x900 native resolution will result in better gaming performance. Do not kid yourself that 8600GT is very powerful. It's ok for a laptop, but can't compare with say a desktop 7900 (or 7800) cards, not to mention 8800 series.

If all you want is Windows gaming laptop and you are going to mostly play from a plug, and don't need much portability, buy the Asus. If you are planning to walk around with the thing, and want battery life, get the MBP. As far as OSX, well, MBP is the only choice (legally).

 

I think the MBP is good choice if you're not into gaming or you don't plan on doing anything fancy. If you get the MBP, you have to use Bootcamp to install Vista, then install all necessary drivers.

It should be noted that even after installing Vista, I still have compatibility trouble with music production hardware and some of the software I'm using stutters periodically (which doesn't make any sense to me because the internal architecture should be greatly similar). The battery also drained in a shocking 15 minutes when I tried rendering a 12 min, 14 track, Ableton Live project to wave format although the speed was quite a boost from my old Alienware. I ended up making my MBP the "entertainment computer" and producing on my G2S instead. My old Powerbook had the same compatibility issue with my production hardware, but XP was used. I'm don't know if hardware for other purposes (i.e. video editing) has the same issues.

The G2S, by the way, works just fine and looks absolutely lovely imho. It stays pretty cool despite having to do high stress rendering, not that the MBP has ever "overheated" for me. I can't speak for the G1S though. Since I'm not huge into watching movies in high definition and all, it looks like my MBP is getting put to good use. It's lighter and draws lots of attention, especially at the airport.

 

First off, I'm not tryin' to point anybody in any particular direction because people know what they want or at least its supposed to, that's why, at the end, I pointed out (if you read, wich I hope it's not so difficult to you) that it all depends on your needs.

But the screen thing.. hey, ok, you have LED screen, what's the big deal? it gets it's brightness faster (no need to warm up) and sorta, but you won't tell me that watching a HD movie or playing games on 1680 it's "worst" than on 1440x900.. I simply don't think that's a res for a 15'4 screen. But if you can live with that, hey, go on!

Turbocaching feature, my mystake, sorry.

Anyways, as I already said (for those who can read *and* understand what they're reading), it all depends on your needs.

If you're going to game a lot, then get the G1S, if you're going to use input devices a lot, get the G1S (more USB, card reader, eSata), if you intend to connect to a HDTV, then both will do the job but G1S has HDMI. If you like OS X and will be using it a lot, get G1S, also battery life is better on MBP but "only" when not in Windows, so if you're with OSX (again), stick with MBP. If you have lots of software that works under windows and use them a lot.. just stick with G1S too, or wait until drivers get more mature on MBP.

In any case, both are good choices, you won't go wrong with any of these unless you use OSX and buy the G1S xDD